Most research on shared mobility—bike sharing, car sharing, and e-scooter services—has focused on users: what makes people try these services and what drives adoption. But what about the providers? Why do they choose to launch in one city over another?
This study by the University of Antwerp flips the script by exploring shared mobility companies’ decision-making processes. What do they look for when selecting new markets? And which local conditions are deal-breakers—or key selling points?
Drawing on insights from international business, economic geography, and mobility research, the study identifies various factors that could influence market entry decisions. These were then ranked using a structured decision-making method called the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), allowing researchers to determine each factor’s relative importance.
Here’s what stood out:
- Local institutions matter most: Companies pay close attention to city rules, such as how easy it is to get permits and what performance indicators (e.g., parking compliance or fleet availability) are required.
- Infrastructure is key: Dedicated bike lanes, parking zones, and other mobility infrastructure are priorities.
- People and places: Providers are drawn to cities with high population densities and higher incomes, especially in tourist-heavy areas.
- Partnerships and competition: While micromobility operators (like scooter companies) often see public transport as a competitor, car and bike-sharing firms are more open to collaboration.
Interestingly, not all shared mobility companies think alike. Car-sharing firms focus more on factors affecting driving—like parking policies. Micromobility providers prefer dense, high-traffic areas and favor cities with looser service-level demands. Bike-sharing companies lean heavily on whether there’s solid micromobility infrastructure and whether local policies support shared mobility.
The big takeaway for cities is that if you want to attract quality shared mobility services and maximize public benefit, you must build the right local framework. But beware: with such different priorities across providers, there’s no one-size-fits-all policy. Flexibility, clarity, and active collaboration are key.